NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
Reflections on "The Late Remarkable
Revolution in Government":
Aedanus Burke and Samuel Bryan's
Unpublished History oj the
Ratification oj the Federal Constitution
In the aftermath of their loss in the battle over ratification of the
Constitution, a number of prominent Antifederalists started work on
histories intended to vindicate their cause. Mercy Otis Warren, Abraham Yates, and Aedanus Burke all began histories of the Constitutional struggle. Only one of these Antifederalist histories, Mercy Otis
Warren's History oj the Rise, Progress and Termination oj the American
Revolution, Interspersed with Biographical, Political and Moral Obser-
vations, eventually found its way into print. While Abraham Yates's
unfinished history has figured prominently in modern scholarly discussions of Antifederalist thought, scarcely any attention has been
devoted to Aedanus Burke's historical project. This neglect is especially unfortunate, for Burke's project was in many respects the most
complex historical inquiry undertaken by anyone involved in the
ratification struggle.1
I would like to thank Richard Beeman and Gordon Wood for their suggestions. Financial
support for research and writing was made possible by fellowships from the John Carter
Brown Library, the American Antiquarian Society, and the University of Pennsylvania.
1
Mercy Otis Warren, History oj the Rise, Progress and Termination oj the American Revolution, Interspersed with Biographical, Political and Moral Observations (Boston, 1805). A copy
of the chapters pertaining to the ratification struggle has been reprinted and published as
part of the anthology of Antifederalist writings edited by Herbert J. Storing, The Complete
Anti-Federalist (7 vols., Chicago, 1981), 6:195-249. The original copy of the Yates history
manuscript is in the Abraham Yates Papers (New York Public Library). This manuscript
has been edited with an introduction by Staughton Lynd, "Abraham Yates's History of the
Movement for the United States Constitution," William and Mary Quarterly 20 (1963),
223-45.
T H E PENNSYLVANIA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY & BIOGRAPHY
Vol. CXII, No. 1 (January 1988)
104
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
Burke, a leading South Carolina jurist, was a vocal opponent of
the Constitution and a noted pamphleteer in his home state. He
intended his "History of the late remarkable revolution in Government" to be a collaborative endeavor, and he enlisted the support of
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania
to aid him in his effort.2 To obtain the necessary information to
complete his history, Burke sent detailed questionnaires to both Gerry
and Bryan so that he might better comprehend the nature of the
struggle over ratification in the different regions of the country. The
inquiries were intended to identify the main actors involved in the
ratification struggle and the means utilized to secure adoption of the
Constitution. Burke even went so far as to break down the population
along economic, geographic, and gender lines. He inquired not only
about the attitudes of these various groups towards the Constitution
but also sought to determine their motives for supporting or opposing
the new frame of government.
Burke never published his history, and all that remains of his effort
are a copy of his questions and Bryan's detailed replies. In his responses
to Burke's inquiry, Bryan provided an impressive discussion of the
forces shaping the outcome of ratification in Pennsylvania. His analysis
is among the most sophisticated comments on the Constitutional
struggle penned by any contemporary. Indeed, when Bryan's historical
observations are set against the work of such other Antifederalist
historians as Yates, Warren, or even Burke, it becomes readily apparent
that Bryan was one of the most perceptive and farsighted political
commentators among the Antifederalists.
Burke's historical interpretation of the ratification struggle can be
pieced together from the structure of his query. An outspoken critic
of the Constitution, Burke hoped to further the cause of republicanism
by publishing an Antifederalist account of the ratification struggle.
At the same time that Burke contemplated writing his history, he
2
Unfortunately, Gerry's copy of Burke's inquiry disappeared when a trunk containing
the query was stolen. The questions disappeared before Gerry even had a chance to read
them. As a result of this mishap, we have no idea how Gerry would have responded to
Burke's queries. The contents of the missing trunk are listed in Elbridge Gerry to Ann
Gerry, Nov. 15, 1789, Gerry-Knight Papers (Massachusetts Historical Society). Luckily for
historians, Bryan's copy of the questionnaire remained in his hands long enough for him to
produce a detailed set of replies.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
105
was actively working with other Antifederalist representatives in Congress to secure amendments that would have substantially weakened
the powers granted to the new federal government. He hoped that
his history would demonstrate that the Federalists had been engaged
in a systematic plot to undermine liberty. His history would thus
serve to discredit his political enemies and rally support for the
Antifederalist agenda for amendments.3
Burke's own historical thinking was deeply influenced by the Whig
rhetoric of the American Revolution.4 Like so many Whig thinkers,
Burke was ever on his guard, alert to the continual dangers posed by
designing men who were forever plotting against liberty. Guided by
the logic of Whig thought, Burke quite naturally saw the movement
for the Constitution as the outcome of a deliberate plot against liberty
by a secret cabal.
Postwar politics had done little to allay his fears about the dangers
of conspiracy. The founding of the Society of Cincinnati in 1783
struck many contemporary observers like Burke as a particularly
dangerous sign of a declining commitment to true republican Whig
ideals. The Society was composed of officers drawn from the ranks
of the Continental Army. A mere fraternal organization of military
officers would not have provoked the ire of stalwart republicans like
Burke. The Cincinnati, however, was far more than a fraternal organization of retired Revolutionary officers. While the Society consciously sought to evoke the memory of the venerable republican
figure of Cincinnatus, few of its members actually emulated the
Roman leader by retiring from politics and returning to the life of
private virtue and yeoman independence.5 From the moment of its
inception, the Society became actively involved in the political debates
3
My own understanding of Burke's motives for writing a history benefited from reading
a section of John Meleney's forthcoming study of Burke. I would also like to thank Mr.
Meleney for alerting me to Gerry's involvement in Burke's historical project.
4
The centrality of conspiracy theory to Anglo-American Whig political culture is a major
concern of Bernard Bailyn in The Ideological Origins oj the American Revolution (Cambridge,
1967)} the close connections between Whig political thought, conspiracy theory, and Enlightenment history are developed by Gordon S. Wood, "Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style:
Causality and Deceit in the Eighteenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly 39 (1982),
401-41.
5
For a discussion of the importance of Cincinnatus as a model of republican rectitude,
see Garry Wills, Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment (New York, 1984).
106
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
of the new nation. Members of the Cincinnati were among the most
vocal proponents of a stronger central government. Opponents of the
Cincinnati, many of whom would later become vocal Antifederalists,
attacked the Society, charging that it sought to establish a hereditary
nobility. Immediately after the founding of the Cincinnati, Burke
took up his pen to denounce the organization. He predicted that "this
Order is planted in a fiery, hot ambition, and thirst for power; and
its branches will end in tyranny . . . ," adding that "this is the
natural result of an establishment, whose departure is so sudden from
our open professions of republicanism."6
While many future Federalists thundered against the anarchy they
discerned in the years immediately following independence, Burke
was far more concerned about the dangers of aristocracy and monarchy. The Cincinnati was only the first of several plots Burke railed
against. Hardly four years passed before Burke again came forward
to expose what he believed was another conspiracy against American
liberty. In early 1787 Burke openly attacked the British merchant
community of Charleston for meddling in local elections. He excoriated British merchants for the "ruinous schemes they are driving at
against this country" and attacked them for their "perpetual cabals
and machinations."7
When Burke turned his attention to the events surrounding the
movement to ratify the new federal Constitution, he quite naturally
saw a cabal at work and blamed the Society of the Cincinnati and
the British merchants for playing a vital role in this new conspiracy
6
Considerations on the Society or Order oj Cincinnati (Philadelphia, 1783), 4. The best
historical account of the Society is Minor Myers, Jr., Liberty Without Anarchy: A History oj
the Society of Cincinnati (Charlottesville, 1983). Mercy Otis Warren saw the formation of
the Society as a symptom of a more general decline in republican sentiment: Warren, History
oj the Rise, Progress and Termination oj the American Revolution, chapter 31. Elbridge Gerry
was particularly concerned about the danger posed by the Cincinnati. Gerry's hostility to
the Society is discussed by George A. Billias, Elbridge Gerry: Founding Father and Republican
Statesman (New York, 1976). Attacks on the Society played a prominent role in the Antifederalists' attempt to portray Federalists as proponents of monarchy and aristocracy.
7
"Memorial of Aedanus Burke, Citizen of Charleston," The Charleston Morning Post and
Daily Advertiser, Feb. 7, 1787. For a discussion of Burke's concerns about the British merchant
community in Charleston, see George Rogers, Jr., "Aedanus Burke, Nathanael Greene,
Anthony Wayne, and the British Merchants of Charleston," South Carolina Historical Magazine 67 (1966), 75-83.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
107
against liberty. The movement to ratify the Constitution was, he
believed, the most recent episode to subvert the achievements of the
Revolution. Burke was convinced that Federalists sought to restore
the twin evils of monarchy and aristocracy. His obsession with conspiracy shaped the questions he sent Bryan and informed his own
historical interpretation of the Constitutional struggle.8
Burke forwarded Bryan a copy of his questionnaire in late 1789.
Bryan was a natural choice as a collaborator since he had been among
the most active participants in the ratification struggle within Pennsylvania. As the author of the "Centinel" and "Dissent of the Minority," two of the most widely circulated and influential
Antifederalist attacks on the Constitution, Bryan was uniquely qualified to comment on ratification in Pennsylvania. A committed opponent of the "aristocratic party" in his own state, Bryan was only
too happy to aid Burke in his effort. He felt that a history of the
"late remarkable revolution in Government" would be "highly advantageous to the interests of republicanism." Eager to aid this cause,
Bryan resolved to provide detailed answers to Burke's questions.
Indeed, Bryan was so committed to this project that after having
received Burke's lengthy questionnaire, he immediately sought out
additional help so that he might provide Burke with a complete
account of the political and economic climate in Pennsylvania before
and during the struggle over ratification.9
8
Aedanus Burke to John Lamb, June 23, 1788, John Lamb Papers (New-York Historical
Society). General assessments of ratification in South Carolina include the following works:
George Rogers, Jr., "South Carolina Ratifies the Federal Constitution," South Carolina
Historical Association Proceedings 31 (1961), 41-62; Robert A. Rutland, The Ordeal of the
Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification Struggle oj 1787-1788 (Norman, 1966),
162-69; and Steven R. Boyd, The Politics oj Opposition: Antifederalists and the Acceptance of
the Constitution (Millwood, 1979), chapter 5. For evidence of Burke's concern with conspiracy
in his questionnaire, see questions 4, 14-17.
9
To gain the requisite information, Bryan approached John Nicholson, the Comptroller
General of Pennsylvania and the man who coordinated the state Antifederalist campaign.
Apparently, Nicholson never answered Bryan's inquires, so the latter simply responded to
Burke's questionnaire without any outside assistance. Samuel Bryan to John Nicholson, Nov.
21 and Dec. 5, 1789, Nicholson Papers (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission).
For more on Nicholson's role in the ratification campaign, see Boyd, The Politics of Opposition,
chapter 3. Little scholarly attention has been devoted to the political thought of Samuel
Bryan. Brief discussions of Bryan's thought as the "Centinel" may be found in Cecelia
Kenyon, "Men of Little Faith: Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Govern-
108
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
Although Bryan concurred with Burke's assessment of the key facts
surrounding ratification, he departed from him on a number of crucial
historical issues, including the motivations of Federalist sympathizers
and the mechanisms by which the Federalists succeeded. Bryan's
understanding of ratification was less dependent on conspiracy. Although he accepted the common Antifederalist view that the leading
Federalist politicians acted as an aristocratic cabal, he did not then
proceed to argue that the conspiracy extended throughout the ranks
of Federalist supporters. His own thinking about politics was shaped
by an understanding of political economy that was far more complicated than that of Burke and many other Antifederalists.10
Like Burke, Bryan believed that the economic hardships of the
Confederation era were largely responsible for the call to revise the
Articles of Confederation, and like most Antifederalists, he accepted
the need to grant Congress greater power to regulate commerce.
However, Bryan was willing to move well beyond the narrow proposals for reform favored by many leading Antifederalists. In 1785
he wrote to his father, George Bryan, with his own proposals for
granting Congress "in the most unlimited manner" the authority to
"impose duties on any article of commerce or restrict it in such a
way as they please or to prohibit the importation or exportation of
anything what so ever." While acknowledging the necessity of allowing Congress greater control over financial matters, Bryan remained
wary of the dangers of providing Congress with such considerable
power. A successful policy, he noted, would grant Congress additional
ment," William and Mary Quarterly 12 (1955), 3-43; Jackson Turner Main, The Antijederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 (Chapel Hill, 1961); and Gordon S. Wood,
The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (New York, 1969). Bryan's "Letters of
Centinel" originally appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer and the Philadelphia
Freeman's Journal, Oct. 1787-April 1788. His "The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the
Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents," was published in the
Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser, Dec. 18, 1787.
10
Bryan's analysis of the economic forces shaping political life in the new nation was far
more complex than either of the explanations provided by Warren or Yates. The latter two
saw the political struggles in terms of the traditional court/country dichotomy that had
characterized English political history. For a useful overview of the literature on the court/
country divide and its relevance to the ratification struggle, see James Hutson, "Country,
Court and Constitution: Antifederalism and the Historians," William and Mary Quarterly
38 (1981), 337-68. For the histories of Yates and Warren, see note 1.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
109
authority without allowing Congress the freedom for "absorbing all
power and influence within their vortex."11
In his replies to Burke's questions about the state of the economy
prior to the Constitutional Convention, Bryan provided an unusually
detailed assessment of the causes of the financial woes then afflicting
postwar America. He eschewed simplistic explanations of America's
hardships and avoided the common tendency among many Antifederalists to think about political economy in a language better suited
to discussions of morality. Traditional Whig republicanism was distinctly hostile to unrestrained commercial activity and stressed the
role of virtuous behavior in maintaining prosperity. Bryan avoided
jeremiads about declining virtue, idleness, and luxury. In his view,
the causes of America's economic woes were simple: inflated paper
money, over-consumption of imported British goods, and an onerous
public debt. He did not identify money and over-consumption as
symptoms of moral decline. Indeed, republican laments about declining virtue were conspicuously absent from Bryan's analysis of the
economic problems of the Confederation period.12
Despite the serious economic problems confronting the nation,
America had not, in Bryan's estimation, succumbed to anarchy or
licentiousness. Bryan disputed the claims frequently put forward by
Federalists that American society was poised on the brink of collapse.
Perhaps because he was so skilled a political pamphleteer, Bryan
resisted the tendency so common among his peers to treat political
11
Samuel Bryan to George Bryan, May, 1785, Bryan Papers (Historical Society of
Pennsylvania). I would like to thank Joe Foster for bringing this letter to my attention and
for sharing with me his own work on the Bryan family and Pennsylvania politics. Antifederalists like Elbridge Gerry were extremely wary of investing Congress with a broad grant
of additional power. Gerry's concerns about the dangers of making such a grant are developed
in a letter he wrote as a member of the Massachusetts delegation to the Continental Congress:
see "Massachusetts Delegates to the Governor of Massachusetts," Sept. 3, 1785, in Edmund
C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols., Washington, D.C.,
1921-1936), #:206-210; The best account of Gerry's political thought is Billias, Elbridge
Gerry.
12
A concise scholarly treatment of the traditional Whig attitude to commerce may be
found in J.G.A. Pocock, "Virtue and Commerce in the Eighteenth Century," Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 3 (1972), 119-34. The most notable example of the Antifederalist
claim that the economic woes afflicting postwar America were a result of declining republican
virtue was Warren's, History oj the Rise, Progress and Termination oj the American Revolution,
chapters 30-31.
110
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
rhetoric* as an accurate depiction of reality and reminded Burke that
though "Party Spirit was high" it was "much more violent on Paper
than any where else." He further noted that "on the whole we were
much more peaceable & orderly than our Neighbors, who read our
Newspapers, believed us to be." 13
Bryan did not endorse Burke's judgment that the movement for
the Constitution represented a deliberate plot by British merchants,
Tory sympathizers, and members of the Cincinnati. While he agreed
with Burke's assessment of the principal sources of Federalist support,
he did not accept Burke's analysis of the mechanisms which brought
about ratification. He soundly rejected the claim that the Federalists
had been involved in a systematic conspiracy and argued that:
the Evidence of a preconcerted System, in those who are called Federalists, appears rather from the Effect than from any certain knowledge
before hand. The thing however must have been easy to them from
their Situation in the great Towns & many of them being wealthy Men
& Merchants, who have continual Correspondence with each other.14
Federalists clearly benefited from their strength in urban environments where communication was far easier. Their involvement in
trade provided them with a natural network of contacts and a steady
supply of information from areas outside of their localities. In choosing
to describe the advantages possessed by Federalists in terms of superior
resources, and thus avoiding the invocation of a conspiracy, Bryan
provided a decidedly modern historical explanation for the outcome
of ratification.
Bryan displayed a discerning eye for the exceedingly complex issue
of political motivations. Although he favored an economic interpretation of political behavior, Bryan avoided the simplistic dichotomies
that have hampered many modern historical accounts of ratification.
He steadfastly refused to embrace economic determinism. Even the
basic division between creditors and debtors, an issue that has figured
so prominently in modern historical debate since Charles Beard, could
not be resolved into a simple dichotomy. As Bryan noted, "Debtors
are often Creditors in their Turn & and the Paper money had great
13
14
See Samuel Bryan's response number 2 to questions by Aedanus Burke.
Ibid., response number 15.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
111
Effect on Men's Minds." In choosing to distinguish between the
actual state of the economy and popular perceptions, Bryan took a
significant step away from earlier conspiratorial interpretations of
political behavior. He recognized that the actual harm caused by
economic hardship during the Confederation period was in many cases
less important than the popular perception of economic instability.
This distinction was a crucial one since Bryan recognized that individuals and groups often pursued a course of action under the false
notion that they were acting in their best interests. Writing as the
"Centinel," Bryan castigated the merchant community for precisely
this reason. "The merchant, immersed in schemes of wealth, seldom
extends his views beyond the immediate object of gain; he blindly
pursues his seeming interest, and sees not the latent mischief."15 The
public arguments Bryan advanced as the "Centinel" are especially
revealing when compared with his later responses to Burke's queries.
Even as the "Centinel," he sought to draw a distinction between the
conspiratorial actions of a small cabal of Federalist leaders and the
motivations of the vast majority of Federalist supporters. As the
"Centinel," Bryan provided a lengthy list of Federalist outrages that
included attempts to rush the process of ratification, to intimidate
Antifederalist legislators, to block Antifederalist access to the press
and mails, and generally to mislead or deceive the people. Yet, despite
the dirty tricks associated with the ratification campaign, Bryan felt
that conspiratorial actions of the Federalist leadership only partly
explained their eventual triumph in the ratification struggle.
Writing as the "Centinel," Bryan had publicly posed and answered
the very same question that Burke would later address to him in
private—"What gave birth to the late Continental Convention?" His
answer as the "Centinel" departed little from the observations he
later communicated to Burke. The solution was simple: "was it not
the situation of our commerce, which lay at the mercy of every foreign
power."16 Interestingly, even as the "Centinel," Bryan favored an
15
Charles A. Beard) An Economic Interpretation oj the Constitution (New York, 1913).
Bryan's own understanding of the economic divisions between Federalists and Antifederalists
was developed in his replies to Burke: see Bryan's response to number 12. For the "Centinel's"
attack on the myopia of the merchant community, see Storing, ed., The Complete AntiFederalist, 2:178.
16
Ibid., 2:164.
112
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
interpretation that highlighted the role of economic interest, or rather
people's perceptions of their own economic interests. The "Centinel"
acknowledged that an aristocratic party had been able to exploit the
nation's recent economic hardships and had succeeded in convincing
the population that the new Constitution would improve their economic well-being. One of reasons that the Federalists had proven so
successful, the "Centinel" observed, was that "their writers . . .
paint the distresses of every class of citizens with all the glowing
language of eloquence." Moreover, Federalist writers managed to
convince the people that the Constitution would be "a panacea for
all the ills of the people." The "Centinel" did not attack the Federalists for appealing to people's interests; he only disputed the veracity
of their claims. He questioned his readers, "how is the proposed
government to shower down those treasures upon every class of citizen
as is so industriously inculcated and so fondly believed."17 Just as he
had scolded merchants for their short-sighted view of their interest,
so he attacked all those other groups who had been taken in by false
Federalist eloquence. The "Centinel" was angry at Pennsylvanians
not for pursuing their own interests but only for defining their interests
too narrowly.
Rather than disparage political appeals to interest, Bryan attacked
the Constitution for failing adequately to represent society's many
interests. The structure of the House of Representatives was, in his
view, unacceptable because it lacked sufficient representatives "to
communicate the requisite information, of the wants, local circumstances and sentiments of so extensive an empire." He accepted the
common Antifederalist ideal that the legislature ought to be an exact
miniature of society. This notion only made sense in a society of
diverse interests. While Bryan might hope for the creation of a virtuous
yeomen republic at some time in the future, for the present moment
he contented himself with insuring that the interests of the various
classes that made up society would be properly represented. "Centinel" did not accept that legislators ought to be disinterested public
servants; rather, he attacked the new frame of government for failing
to represent properly the interests of the people. One of the greatest
17
Ibid., 2:165, 163.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
113
shortcomings of the Constitution was the "democratic branch" which
was "so independent of the people as to be indifferent of its interests."
Accountability, not disinterestedness, lay at the root of Bryan's conception of republicanism. The best form of government, he argued,
was one "which holds those entrusted with power, in the greatest
responsibility to their constituents."18
The key to understanding Bryan's political thought lay in his
reformulation of traditional republican principles to accord greater
legitimacy to the idea of interest. Traditional republican notions of
virtue were closely tied to the ideal of disinterestedness.19 English
Whig thought had been based on the concept of virtual representation.
Representatives in this scheme were to serve as disinterested spokesmen for the public good. This republican ideal was set against another
more radical variant of Whig political thought that championed the
idea of direct representation of constituent interests. American political
thought struck a compromise between these two poles of Whig
thought. Ideally, legislators were to be directly responsible to the
people but were also charged with being disinterested representatives
of the entire community. A virtuous citizenry—supporters of this
doctrine argued—would naturally elect their more talented betters,
members of a natural aristocracy who would serve as disinterested
lawmakers.20 Bryan rejected the goal of disinterestedness and carried
18
Ibid., 2:142, 151, 139.
Disinterestedness played a crucial role in traditional republican thought. This theme is
explored by Wood, Creation of the American Republic, 53-70. Recently Wood has argued that
interest-oriented politics was crucial to Antifederalism: see Wood, "Interests and Disinterestedness in the Making of the Constitution," in Richard Beeman, Stephen Botein, and
Edward Carter, II, eds., Beyond Confederation: Origins oj the Constitution and American National
Identity (Chapel Hill, 1987), 69-112. Bryan clearly fits Wood's most recent characterization
of the Antifederalists. The assertion that Antifederalism's interest-oriented ideology was the
forerunner of modern liberalism seems particularly compelling with regard to the midAtlantic region. Antifederalists, particularly a number of highly influential figures in Pennsylvania and New York, broke with traditional republican thought in choosing to recognize
and promote a notion of representation that responded to interest. For evidence that a similar
interest-oriented ideology played an influential role in shaping the thinking of New York
Antifederalists, see Saul Cornell, "The Ironies of Petty Bourgeois Radicalism: The Antifederalism of Abraham Yates," Paper presented to the New-York Historical Society Conference on "New York in the Age of the Constitution," May 15-16, 1987.
20
The best account of the evolution of English Whig thought into a distinctively American
political ideology is Wood, The Creation oj the American Republic. Radical strains within
19
114
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
the idea of direct representation to its logical conclusion. Elected
representatives were to be agents of their constituents and intimately
familiar with their lives. This notion of representation was inherently
localistic. Only by creating a legislative body large enough to include
all of society's many diverse local interests could government truly
be representative.
In Bryan's vision of politics, the notion of virtue had not been
abandoned but was substantially altered. A virtuous citizenry, Bryan
argued, would not defer to members of a natural aristocracy, but
would themselves take an active interest in politics and elect individuals who represented their own interests. To foster an enlightened
and active citizenry, Bryan believed that "the highest responsibility
is to be attained, in a simple structure of government." He feared
that "if you complicate the plan by various orders, the people will
be perplexed and divided in their sentiments about the sources of
abuse or misconduct." Bryan was more democratic in his thinking
than many of his contemporaries because he feared the dangers posed
by society's rulers more than he feared the people.21
To be sure, Bryan did not possess an unbridled faith in the people.
Few Whig republican thinkers were simple majoritarian democrats.
Bryan's fears about democracy are worth considering in some detail
because they demonstrate the scope and limits of democratic thinking
among leading Antifederalists. He particularly feared that popular
deference for great men would often result in the election of leaders
hostile to liberty. He was especially worried that in a nation like
America, one that had only recently cast off the bonds of monarchy,
too many people were still reared in patterns of deference and might
democratically vote in a tyrant or an aristocracy. Bryan also worried
that the Revolution had rendered the people amenable to rapid
English Whig thought are explored in John Brewer, "English Radicalism in the Age of
George III," in J.G.A. Pocock, ed., Three British Revolutions: 1641, 1688, 1776 (Princeton,
1980), 323-67.
21
Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist, 2:139. Bryan was less concerned about the
dangers of a majority faction violating the rights of minority factions. He was not, however,
unmindful of threats to civil liberty, and it was for this reason that he believed that a Bill
of Rights was essential. He differed from Federalists like Madison because he felt that it
was men who held power, not popular majorities, who were the greatest threat to civil
liberties.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
115
changes in government and hence more susceptible to the appeals of
ambitious men. He was not, however, a "man of little faith" in
democracy, but rather, a cautious democrat who appreciated that a
truly representative government could only be attained where conditions of relative equality prevailed and the people had been reared
in democratic-republican traditions. Since America had not yet attained the perfect conditions necessary for his democratic vision of
republican government, he quite naturally expressed some concern
about the precariousness of America's new-found freedom. His concern was typical of many democratic-minded political leaders of the
Revolutionary generation who were extremely wary of the threat of
counter-revolution.22
Despite his misgivings about democracy, Bryan preferred a model
of government that imitated Pennsylvania's unicameral legislature.
Such a system of representation would "create the most perfect responsibility" between elected officials and the people and insure that
rulers would be restrained by public vigilance. By encouraging the
representation of the people's interests in the most direct manner
possible, the Pennsylvania model would school the people in popular
democracy.23 Active involvement in politics would naturally follow
from individuals' pursuit of their own interests. He believed that this
system would encourage a spirit of public watchfulness over elected
officials. Like many democrat-minded Antifederalists, Bryan believed
that greater virtue resided in the people than in any class of natural
aristocrats, and he favored a form of government whose system of
representation was based firmly on notions of interest and account-
22
Kenyon, "Men of Little Faith," 34. I believe that Kenyon's suggestion that Bryan was
less democratic than his Federalist opponents is mistaken. Leading Federalists and Antifederalists each had reservations about democracy. Although each side was committed to some
form of representative government, there were important differences between the Federalist
and Antifederalist understanding of democracy. If we are to comprehend these differences,
we must focus on what Gordon Wood has described as the essential "political sociology" of
each side: Wood, Creation of the American Republic, 485. It is vital to understand how each
side thought representation would function under the Constitution. Antifederalists like Bryan
felt that Federalists sought to create a system that would enshrine the principles of deference
and natural aristocracy. Bryan rejected the need for popular deference to a class of virtuous
natural aristocrats. In this sense, Bryan fits Wood's notion that the Antifederalists were
essentially populist democrats.
23
Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist, 2:139.
116
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
ability. His interest-oriented, localistic conception of politics was highly
influential and played a vital role in shaping Antifederalist ideology
in Pennsylvania. It was this theory of representation that was the
Antifederalists' greatest contribution to the emergence of a liberal
conception of politics.24 The concepts of interest and disinterestedness
marked the ideological divide that separated Bryan's brand of Antifederalism from that of his Federalist opponents—an ideological split
that in large measure accounted for the competing views of representative government espoused by these two sides in the debate.
Bryan's interest-oriented conception of representation contrasted
noticeably with that of James Wilson, who was among the most
influential Federalist leaders in Pennsylvania and one of the most
democratic-minded figures within the Federalist camp. Many modern
commentators have erroneously suggested that Federalists embraced
a pluralistic, interest-oriented conception of democratic politics. In
fact, Federalists like Wilson worked to create a system that would
manipulate interest in such a way as to neutralize its impact on the
legislature. Wilson's notion of democratic politics was deeply rooted
in traditional republican ideals. He sought to reconcile democracy
and virtue by creating a system that would promote the election of
disinterested men, and, so, would foster deference for a natural aristocracy. He hoped to prevent democratic politics from becoming
24
Both Richard A. Ryerson and Douglas M. Arnold have argued that Pennsylvania
Antifederalists were proponents of a homogeneous yeoman republic: see Ryerson, "Republican Theory and Partisan Reality in Revolutionary Pennsylvania: Towards a New View of
the Constitutionalist Party," in Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds., Sovereign States
in an Age of Uncertainty (Charlottesville, 1981), 95-133; and Arnold, "Political Ideology
and the Internal Revolution in Pennsylvania: 1776-1790" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University,
1976). In reading Antifederalist political rhetoric it is important not to seize too quickly on
those phrases and ideas which Fit neatly into an abstract republican paradigm and not to
treat Antifederalism as a monolithic political ideology. Each of these approaches has obscured
the tensions and conflicting ideological impulses within Antifederalist thought. Antifederalists
in Pennsylvania and New York displayed important proto-liberal qualities in their political
thinking. Gordon Wood has found similar proto-liberal qualities in William Findley, another
prominent Pennsylvania Antifederalist. For more on this point, see Wood, "Interests and
Disinterestedness." The literature on republicanism is voluminous. The term republican
paradigm emerged as a result of Robert Shalhope's influential review article, "Toward a
Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American
Historiography," William and Mary Quarterly 29 (1972), 49-80. In 1985 the American
Quarterly, vol. 37, devoted an entire issue to the problem of republicanism in American
culture and this is the best guide to recent literature on this subject.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
117
too localistic, too rooted in the narrow and particular interests of
individual communities. Fearing that a rabble rouser, a man too close
to the people, might gain election, he advocated elections by large
electoral districts. Wilson acknowledged the need for government to
possess "the mind or sense of the people at large," but he also argued
that it was imperative that election districts be large so as to favor
"men of intelligence and uprightness." Wilson's vision of democracy
looked back to a traditional republican ideal that equated disinterestedness with virtue.25
Antifederalists were not of one accord on all issues—a fact made
readily apparent in comparing Aedanus Burke's understanding of
ratification with that of Samuel Bryan. Perhaps the most interesting
feature of the collaborative historical effort begun by these two men
lay not in what the two men held in common but rather in the
significant differences between how each man approached the problem
of understanding politics. While both Burke and Bryan concurred in
their assessment of the pertinent facts about ratification, they differed
markedly in their understanding of the larger historical forces shaping
political life in the new nation. Burke's emphasis on the role of
conspiracy in political life reflected an older Whig conception of
politics. By accepting the role of interest in political life, especially
the possibility that individuals and groups could be mistaken about
their own interests, Bryan was able to reduce his dependence on
25
The tendency to treat Federalist thinking as a precursor to modern interest-oriented
liberalism is discussed by Paul F. Bourke, "The Pluralist Reading of James Madison's Tenth
Federalist? Perspectives in American History 9 (1975), 271-95. A number of political scientists
have been especially eager to demonstrate that the Federalists were true democrats and the
proper spiritual forefathers of modern democratic politics. The classic statement of this
position is Martin Diamond, "Democracy and The Federalist: A Reconsideration of the
Framers' Intent," The American Political Science Review 53 (1959), 52-68. Ralph Rossum
has gone so far as to argue that James Wilson was an advocate of a "popularly based national
majoritarian democracy": Rossum, "James Wilson and the Pyramid of Government," The
Political Science Reviewer 6 (1976), 113-42. Two useful correctives to this and other anachronistic readings of Federalist political thought include: Gordon S. Wood, "Democracy and
the Constitution," in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., How Democratic
is the Constitution? (Washington, D.C., 1980), 1-17; Robert J. Morgan, "Madison's Theory
of Representation in the Tenth Federalist? Journal of Politics 36 (1974), 852-85. Wilson's
discussion of the best mechanisms for insuring the election of virtuous men appears in
Adrienne Koch, ed., Notes oj the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James
Madison (Athens, Ohio, 1984), 74, 85.
118
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
conspiratorial interpretations of political behavior. Bryan approached
politics in a more sophisticated fashion. He had abandoned a number
of features of traditional Whig republican ideology, including the
former's emphasis on conspiracy and disinterestedness. Bryan understood that the survival of republican government depended upon the
creation of a system that would tap the energy of individual interests
and that voters would invariably follow their own perception of their
interests. Interestingly, Bryan concurred with Federalists and did not
believe it was possible or desirable to eliminate interest-oriented politics. Unlike his Federalist opponents, Bryan did not wish to neutralize
interest or strive to create a system that would filter out the narrow
localistic attachments of elected officials. Instead, he openly embraced
interest-oriented politics.
It was Bryan's Antifederalist vision of politics, not that of his
Federalist opponents, that eventually came to dominate American
political life. Ironically, Burke and Wilson, two men who stood on
opposite sides of the ratification debate, were each in different ways
wedded to traditional interpretations of republicanism. This fact
should serve as a caution against attempts to treat either Federalism
or Antifederalism as monolithic ideologies. Furthermore, the presence
of traditional republican political ideas on both sides of the ratification
debate militates against treating either Antifederalism or Federalism
as the sole harbinger of modern liberalism. While Burke and Wilson
each looked back to a republican vision of politics that was becoming
increasingly outmoded, it would take a long time before Bryan's
nascent liberal view supplanted the older republican vision of politics.
That Burke and Bryan initially thought it was possible to come to a
common understanding of the causes of the "late remarkable revolution in Government" is itself an excellent example of how subtle
the transformation in political consciousness was that helped propel
America away from republicanism towards liberalism. The move from
disinterestedness to an interest-oriented conception of politics often
involved slight changes in emphasis and not a wholesale rejection of
earlier notions. Rather than marking a turning point between the
advent of liberalism and the decline of republicanism, the Constitutional struggle was part of a long transitional phase when the rhetoric
of republicanism and an emerging ideology of liberalism coexisted.26
26
James T. Kloppenberg has correctly sounded a cautionary note against the dangers of
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
119
Burke's Questionnaire
General Convention of 178727
1. In what State and in what year was the measure proposed?
What were the causes which led to the measure? by what men, or
body of men or party? Or was it for the purpose of investing Congress
with any additional and what powers then deemed necessary? Tell
particularly.
2. What was the State of navigation, trade, and the General, and
particular State police of the Union about the latter end of the year
1786? Or at that time was there in the States in general, and in any,
and what particular State, what is commonly called Anarchy} or a
spirit in the people of Licentiousness? or of enmity to their magistrates,
or opposition or dislike to order and Government? Was the embarrassments of the U.S. at that period & since the peace owing to this
kind of spirit? or to other & what causes? Tell particularly.
3. To what cause necessity or pretext, was it owing, that after the
peace, the commerce and navigation of the U.S. was ruined? Why
their credit abroad & confidence at home lost? To what cause is it to
be ascribed their issuing paper money? Or what States did issue such
money? The terms of redeeming it in each State, the consequence of
such paper emissions—its intrinsic value.
4. Was there in 1786 or at any time before that period any
assuming that intellectual change occurs in a simple linear fashion. In a recent essay on the
origins of liberalism, Kloppenberg has provided a much needed reminder that "discourse, . . . shifts, often slowly, . . . but always unevenly, in response to the imaginative
manipulation of language by creative thinkers confronting unprecedented problems." See
Kloppenberg, "The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism, and Ethics in Early
American Political Discourse," Journal of American History 74 (1987), 11.
27
A copy of Burke's original questions may be found in the John Nicholson Papers
(Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Comission). The answers to Burke's questions are
located in the Bryan Papers at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. The editors of The
Documentary History of the Ratification oj the Constitution, Volume II, Ratification oj the
Constitution by the States: Pennsylvania (Madison, 1976), (hereafter, DHRQ, have published
Burke's original questions, Bryan's correspondence with Nicholson, and his responses to
Burke's query as part of the microfiche supplement to their volume on Pennsylvania, Mfm:
PA, 700a, b, c, d. The text that follows reproduces both the questions and answers and is
identical to the DHRC transcript except that several minor typographical errors have been
corrected in this edition and annotation has been provided.
120
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
influential men, or any, and what party, and in what States, whose
views, interests or sentiments were unfavorable, or otherwise to the
popular Govt. or favorable to a regal one? Or if so from what motives?
Or was there any party and who were they inclined to avail themselves
of the popularity of a certain personage [General George Washington?]
to bring about any, and what revolution in the Government?
5. When the different States appointed delegates to the Convention, what was the general opinion of the people of Pennsylvania or
its neighbouring States concerning the powers & duty which those
delegates were about to execute? Or was it in contemplation of the
people, or of any and what part that the republican system of Govt.
should be overturned, or materially altered? What was the opinion
of the people, their attachment, or dislike to the Confederation? If
it was deemed practicable were it amended by conferring more authority in affairs relating to commerce? or what other affairs?
6. What is your opinion, whether confederate Republics can manage the affairs of the Confederacy, in the mode of the old Confederation; or by putting the powers of the Confederacy into high
departments, & parcelling it out after the form of a regal Govt. as
at present?
7. What are the special words of the act of Pennsylvania &
neighbouring States, by which authority is given to their respective
delegates for the Convention?
8. At what time did the General Convention meet, & in what
part of Philadelphia? And in what manner public or private, was the
business or debates conducted? Or if the Convention was split into
any and what parties? Or if a certain personage took any and what
active part, in framing the system? The history and proceedings of
this Convention is particularly requested.
9. Did the Cincinnati meet at the time the Convention sat or
not? What part was taken by that Society then or afterwards.
10. What were the public opinion & expectations of the Convention's proceedings while they sat? Or did the public or any party,
expect any system of govt. like that which was offered, or not?
11. When the new system the result of their deliberations, was
offered to the Public, what was the effect produced on the minds of
the public upon the subject? Or did the people split into any and
what faction or party in consequence.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
121
12. What part or side was taken by the following classes of citizens
of Pennsylvania & elsewhere vizt.
Cincinnati
Civil Officers
Monied men
Merchants
Lawyers
Divines
Men of Letters
Whigs
Tories
Women
Mechanics
Seafaring men
Creditors
Debtors
Middle Country
Sea Coast
Back Country
Foreigners—
\
Inhabitants
Which of all these were instrumental, and to what extent, and
from what views or motives for or against the system?
13. What was then temper & disposition of the two parties against
each other? What party names—or if any beside federalist and Antifedl.? Who invented the latter names? What effect had it?
14. Among those who were in opposition to the new-system, was
there any preconcert, correspondence or mutual understanding to act
with unanimity? Or if not thro' what cause was it neglected or omitted?
15. Among the federalists was there any such preconcert, or system
of mutual aid, in any and what States, and what men or party
combined to adopt the New Constitution? And what was the nature
of such combination?
16. Was there any attempt and what to prevent an investigation
of its merits? Or was there sufficient given for that purpose? or take
the opinion of the people on it? or any attempt made by the antifederalists to gain time & for what purpose, or to prevent publications
on the subject?
17. Or did the federalists use any and what means to prevent any
such publications from going forth? or to intercept letters or communications. What use was made of the Post-Office, and by whose
means or agency was it done?
18. What were the principal publications for and against the NewSystem? Who the reputed authors?
19. How soon after the system was offered to the public that the
Legislatures and States of Pennsylvania, Jersey, Delaware &c. took
it up, and passed it—the history of this business in Pennsylvania.
122
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
20. If any arts used to accelerate its adoption? or to elect, or reject
for State Convention, such as were friendly, or otherwise to the system?
When Convention met, what the temper of the parties? In discussing
the system, whether violent, insolent, or otherwise?
21. Who were the leading and influential men in Pennsylvania in
favor of it? Their names? Who in Jersey? Who in Delaware and
Maryland? Their views and character.
22. In those States who were the Leading and influential Antifederalists? and from what parts of the States?
23. In State Convention of Pennsylvania or Legislature, was there
a secession of some of the members? How many and for what cause?
Were they not made prisoners and forced back again to form a house?
by whom and in what manner—the history of this business—
Was the Constitution adopted in Pennsylvania in consequence of
such force put on the seceding members? Was it resented by the
public? If not why? How palliated or justified by the federalists?
Conduct of minority after adoption? Their protest or address how
received by their constituents?
24. Through this whole business, what was the spirit of the populace
of the City, or low Country? or were the Anti's in any fear or danger
of writing or speaking against the Constitution? Or was there any
Mob to crush or punish opposition or was it practicable to raise a
mob—the history of this business.
[25 missing]28
26. If any and what arts used by the federalists to mislead or
deceive the people to adopt it? or to suppress the publications or
objections of the other party?
27. If any rumours, or false reports spread to defame, or ascribe
any and what improper motives to the opposition of the Anti's—
what were the arts used?
28. If any and what impediments in the Printing offices—the
conduct and character of the Printers in general in this business?
Were there any Printers and who & where, who opposed the Constitution? Or were Printers under any and what fear or restraint to
28
Question twenty-five was omitted from the manuscript copy Bryan forwarded to John
Nicholson.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
123
publish against the New-System? Or did the Printers act independently
or otherwise?
29. How far was the Press instrumental in bringing about the
Revolution in Govt.? Or could this be brought about without availing
themselves as they did of the partiality of the Printers?
30. Were any Printers, and who abused, or oppressed or had
subscriptions withdrawn for publishing against the system? The treatment to Coll. Oswald, Greenleaf and what other Printers?29
Samuel Bryan to Aedanus Burke, Post 5 December 1789
1. Previous to the appointment of the Convention there seemed
to be in Pennsylvania a general Wish for a more efficient Confederation. The public Debt was unpaid & unfunded. We were deluged
with foreign Goods, which it was evident might have paid large Sums
to the Continental Treasury, if Duties could have been generally laid
& collected, & at the same Time the levying such Duties would have
checked the extravagant Consumption. Whilst Congress could only
recommend Measures & the States individually could refuse to execute them it was obvious that we were in Danger of falling to Pieces.
The opposition of Rhode Island to the five per Cent had made a
deep Impression upon Peoples Minds. A Desire of strengthening the
Hands of Congress was very general; but no particular Scheme seemed
to be digested, except that most Men seemed to wish Congress possessed of Power to levy Duties on imported Goods. At this Time the
Convention was proposed & Members were elected for Pennsylvania
about the Beginning of the Year 1787;—I do not remember the
particular Time. Very little Bustle was made & little or no Opposition.
What has been called the anticonstitutional or Aristocratic Party30
29
Eleazer Oswald published the Independent Gazetteer, a leading Antifederalist newspaper
in Philadelphia. T h o m a s Greenleaf was the publisher of the New York Journal, an important
Antifederalist newspaper in N e w York City.
30
T h e Anti-Constitutional party, or Republican party, opposed t h e Pennsylvania state
Constitution of 1776. The leaders of this party provided the core for the leadership of the
Federalists during the ratification struggle in Pennsylvania. The Constitutionalists, supporters
of the state Constitution of 1776, formed the basic core of Antifederalist support. The
standard work on Pennsylvania politics in the period remains Robert L. Brunhouse, The
124
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
then governed our Councils and the Representatives in Convention
were chosen almost wholly of that Party & entirely from the City of
Philadelphia. The Convention met without much Expectation of any
thing very important being done by them till towards the Close, altho
some Intimations were made, before hand, by some foolish Members
(as they were thought) of the Society of Cincinnatus that Nothing
less than a Monarchy was to be erected & that the people of Massachusetts were driven into Rebellion for the very purpose of smoothing the Way to this Step by their Suppression. Little Regard however
was paid to these Speeches till towards the Close of the Session of
the Convention, when Surmises were spread from other Quarters that
Something injurious to the Liberties of the People was about to be
produced. These Surmises were again contradicted in some Degree;—
and the Convention rose with favourable Prospects.
2.1 am not able to give a particular State of Trade in Pennsylvania
in 1786. But in General it was in a very unfavourable Situation. Our
Navigation was almost wholly in the Hands of Foreigners, chiefly
English; and a great Part of the Negotiation & Sale of Merchandize
was in the same hands. The numerous Classes of Tradesmen who
depend on Commerce & particularly those who depend on Navigation
were distressed. There was no Anarchy nor any considerable Degree
of Licentiousness in Pennsylvania. Party Spirit was high; but much
more violent on Paper than any where else. The Tories, with the
Spirit of Chagrin & Resentment which flowed from their Disappointments & what they called persecution (chiefly arising from the Test
law)31 had taken Side with the Anticonstitutional or aristocratic party
in Opposition to the Constitutionalists who had before held the Reins
of Government. But on the whole we were much more peaceable &
orderly than our Neighbours, who read our Newspapers, believed us
Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 1776-1790 (Harrisburg, 1942). For more recent work
on political life in Pennsylvania, see Ryerson, "Republican Theory and Partisan Reality in
Revolutionary Pennsylvania"; Arnold, "Political Ideology and the Internal Revolution in
Pennsylvania"; and Owen S. Ireland, "Partisanship and the Constitution: Pennsylvania,
1787," Pennsylvania History 45 (1978), 315-32.
31
The Test Law required an oath of allegiance to the state of Pennsylvania. The law
was vigorously attacked by the Republicans and a number of religious groups who were
opposed to oath taking of any kind. For discussions of the significance of the test laws, see
Arnold, "Political Ideology and the Internal Revolution in Pennsylvania," 105-8.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
125
to be. And Pennsylvania, all along, besides supporting her own Government, had given the most effectual Aid to the United States,
particularly in Money.
3. The Ruin of the Commerce & Navigation of the United States
was owing to a Concurrence of Causes. Some of the Northern Fisheries
had been long nourished by Bounties from Great Britain before the
War; and those Bounties were now withdrawn. We had a Deluge of
Money at the Close of the War, which raised the Prices of our own
Commodities at home and the vast Diminution of Industry increased
this Mischief. Trade during the War had fallen into the Hands of
successful, but ignorant, adventurers who did not understand Commerce. The English Manufacturers, at the End of the War, were
vastly overloaded with those kinds of Goods, which were calculated
only for the American Markets, and they crowded them upon us by
the Hand of their own Clerks & Agents, in such immense Quantities,
that it was impossible for us ever to pay for them. These Goods were
either sold for small prices or trusted out without Discretion & never
paid for. But the Exclusion of our Ships from so many of the British
& French Ports & the Want of Mediterranean Passes have contributed
to the Destruction of our Navigation more than all other Causes.
As to the Paper Money of Pennsylvania which has been issued
since the War, it was made in 1785 for the purpose of establishing
Funds for payment of the Interest to public Creditors & to lend to
such as were under the Necessity of borrowing, at a Time when there
were very few private Lenders. I am not well acquainted with the
Detail of its Funds, Quantities & Times of Redemption. It has too
much fluctuated in its Credit & has been as low as 33 % p Cent
Discount. In Jersey the same Motives for issuing Paper money prevailed & its Fate had been similar. I understand it is now at two
third of its nominal Value.
4. When the federal Constitution was proposed to the people, the
Desire of increasing the powers of Congress was great & this Object
had a mighty Influence in its Favor. The popularity of Genl. W. &
Doctor Franklin had still more. The people in the Towns who depended, in any Measure, on Trade, expected great Relief from it.
The Gentlemen of the late Army, & the Tools of Aristocracy were
loud in its Support5—and as the chief Opposition to it was believed
to arise from such as belonged to the Constitutional Party, the whole
Body of the old Tories, a numerous & wealthy Sett of Men, joined
126
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
in its Support. There is too much Reason to believe that some Men
among us had deeper Views than they chose to declare & wished a
Government even less popular than the one proposed; but in Pennsylvania they have been very reserved on this Head. The Opposition
was very powerful & their Language was for adopting the Constitution
& procuring Amendments afterwards.
5. I have anticipated this Question.
6. The Writer of this had confined his Views of Alteration to be
made in the old Confederation to a mere Enlargement of the Powers
of Congress, particularly as to maritime Affairs. He thinks the Experiment ought at least to have been tried, whether we could not
have succeeded under a Confederation of independent States, before
we proceeded to consolidate all power in one general Government.
7. Copies of the Acts of Assembly, which are public, will furnish
the best Answer to this Question.
8. The Convention sat in the State house & debated in private.
It has nevertheless been said &, I suppose, is beyond a Doubt that
the Members were much divided & that the present Form of Constitution was agreed to as a Compromise, when they had almost
despaired of agreeing upon any one.
9. The Cincinnati met shortly before the Convention. Some
speeches of Individuals in private Companies were reported to the
Effect before mentioned.32
10. This is anticipated.
11. When the System was published some Writers in the Newspapers stated many Objections to it. The Party in opposition were
the old Constitutional Whiggs for the most part. Numbers of these
however &, especially in the Towns, joined in supporting the new
federal Constitution.
12. The Cincinnati were in Support of it.
The Civil officers were threatened in News paper publications, if
they should oppose, & were mostly in favor it.
32
A general meeting of the Society that included several delegates who later attended
the Constitutional Convention occurred on May 7, 1787. Further details on the activities
of the Cincinnati may be found in Myers, Liberty Without Anarchy, 95.
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
127
Monied Men & particularly the Stockholders in the Bank were in
favor of it.33
The Merchants in favor of it.
Lawyers;—the greatest part in favor of it.
Divines of all Denominations, with very few Exceptions, in favor
of it. They had suffered by Paper Money.
Men of Letters, many of them, were opposed to it.34
Whigs;—the Majority of them opposed to it.
Tories;—almost all for it.
The Women;—all admire Genl. W.35
Mechanics;—such as depend on Commerce & Navigation in favor.
The others divided according to their former Attachments to the
Revolution & Constitution of Pennsylvania or their Prejudices against
them.36
33
The Bank of North America was chartered by the Continental Congress in 1781.
Members of the Constitutional party opposed the bank and attacked it as an unfair monopoly.
On the Bank controversy, see Janet Wilson, "The Bank of North America and Pennsylvania
Politics: 1781-1787," PMHB 66 (1942), 3-28.
34
Compare Bryan's claim with that of " A F r e e m a n , " Pennsylvania Gazette, N o v . 7, 1 7 8 7 ,
w h o noted that a prominent literary institution in Philadelphia w a s presided over b y a m a n
"well known for his Antifederal disposition." The literary institution alluded to was the
College of Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania) and the man presiding over it was
Provost John Ewing. In addition to Ewing, mathematics instructor Benjamin Workman
wrote the essays of "Philadelphiensis," an important Antifederalist series attacking the
Constitution. James Hutchinson, one of the authors of "An Old Whig," was also associated
with the college. Francis Hopkinson charged that the college was a "hot-bed of sedition."
See his essay under the signature "A.B." in the Independent Gazetteer; March 11, 1788.
Bryan also might have been thinking of the poet Peter Markoe, a leading literary figure in
the city and a noted Antifederalist supporter.
35
Antifederalists complained about Federalist appeals to the prestige of men like Franklin
and Washington. To combat these appeals to deference, Antifederalists praised the manly
values of independence. An explicit invocation of this idea may be found in "Algernon
Sidney," Independent Gazetteer, Nov. 21, 1787. For a sarcastic Antifederalist attack on the
Federalists that explicitly links deference with female traits, see "Minutes of the Spinsters'
Society," Pennsylvania Herald, Nov. 3, 1787.
36
Philadelphia artisans traditionally had been allied with backcountry Constitutionalists.
This coalition weakened during the 1780s and finally disintegrated when urban artisans cast
their lot with Federalists. Interestingly, Bryan's observations suggest that there may have
been some divisions within the artisan community over the issue of the Constitution. Most
studies of artisan political thought in this period have chosen to treat artisan republicanism
as a monolithic political ideology. Bryan's comment is a useful reminder of the political
diversity within the artisan community. The best published accounts of Philadelphia's artisan
12 8
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
Seafaring Men followed the Mercantile Interest & were strenuous
in favor of it.
Creditors were influenced in favor of it by their Aversion to Paper
money;—yet some were opposed to it.
Debtors are often Creditors in their Turn & the Paper money had
great Effect on Men's Minds. The Public Creditors were much
divided, according to their former Predilections & Attachments.
The Counties nearest the Navigation were in favor of it generally;—those more remote in Opposition. The Farmers were perhaps
more numerous in Opposition than any other Sett of Men. Most
Townsmen were for it.
The Foreigners were chiefly connected with the Mercantile people
& were in favor of it. Even the foreign Seamen were made useful
to the Support of it in Philadelphia.
13. The Party Names, before the Convention sat, were Whigs &
Tories, which Names were wearing out;—and Constitutionalist &
those who called themselves Republicans & who were also called
Aristocratics & Anticonstitutionalists. In this last class were included
most of the Merchants, most of the monied Men, most of the Gentlemen in the late Army & many of the Mob in the Towns.
The Name of Federalists or Federal Men grew up at New York
& in the Eastern States, some Time before the Calling of the Convention, to denominate such as were attached to the general Support
of the United States, in Opposition to those who preferred local &
particular Advantages, such as those who opposed the five per Cent
Duty or who with held their Quotas of Contribution to the general
Treasury of the United States. This Name was taken possession of
by those who were in favor of the new federal Government as they
called it & the opposers were called Antifederalists.
14. Those in Opposition seem to have had no Preconcert, nor any
Suspicion of what was coming forward. The same Objections were
made in different Parts of the Continent, almost at the same Time,
merely as they were obviously dictated by the Subject. Local Ideas
seem to have entered very little into the Objections.
15. The Evidence of a preconcerted System, in those who are called
Federalists, appears rather from the Effect than from any certain
community in this period are: Charles S. Olton, Artisans jor Independence: 'Philadelphia
Mechanics and the American Revolution (Syracuse, 1975); and Eric Foner, Tom Paine and
Revolutionary America (New York, 1976).
1988
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
129
Knowledge before hand. The thing however must have been easy to
them from their Situation in the great Towns & many of them being
wealthy Men & Merchants, who have continual Correspondence with
each other.
16. The Printers were certainly most of them more willing to
publish for, then against the new Constitution. They depended more
upon the People in the Towns than in the Country. The Towns
people withdrew their Subscriptions from those who printed Papers
against, and violent Threats were thrown out against the Antis &
Attempts were made to injure them in their Business.
17. Letters were frequently intercepted, & some of them selected
& published by the Federalists. Private Conversation was listened to
by Eves-droppers. Pamphlets & Newspapers were stopt & destroyed.
This was the more easily done as most of the Towns, even down to
the smallest villages, were in possession of the Federalists. I can say
Nothing about the Post Office.
18. The Writer of this has very imperfect Knowledge on this
Subject.
19. In Pennsylvania the Business of the Ratification was extremely
hurried. The Assembly voted, if I remember right, to call a Convention for its Ratification before they were officially notified of its
being recommended by Congress; and the Election was hurried
through before it was generally known what was doing. Many even
in the Counties not very remote were totally uninformed of any
Election being intended before it was finished[.] I have not Materials
to be more particular.
20. In the State Convention the Behavior of the Federalists was
highly insolent & contemptuous. Out of Doors, even in Philadelphia,
their Behavior was more moderate after the Election for Members
of Congress than before. The Election had discovered a Degree of
Strength in the Antis which they did not expect & which Nothing
but Surprize & the Accident of extreme bad Weather which was
unfavorable to the collecting of people scattered thro the Country
could have got the better of. There was one Instance of Violence a
short Time before which was not generally countenanced.37
37
While Federalists scored an impressive victory in the elections for the state ratifying
convention, Antifederalists were successful at electing a number of their most vocal spokesmen
to the convention. On election night a Federalist mob attacked the home of leading Philadelphia Antifederalists and the boarding house where western Antifederalists were residing.
For more details on these events, see DHRC, 224-44.
13 0
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
January
21. I have not Time to enumerate the Persons w[ho] were active
in supporting the Measures.
22. Nor of those against.
23. There was a Secession from the Legislature for the Purpose of
preventing Measures from being precipitated. Some of those seceding
were made prisoners insulted & dragged back, by the Sergeant at
Arms & a Mob of Assistants.38
24. The publications of the Day will be the best Answer to this
Question.
25. The Minds of People in Philadelphia were highly inflamed
against the Opposers & some of them were unquestionably over
awed;—some of them injured. Nothing perhaps checked this Spirit
of Outrage so much as similar Instances in Cumberland County &
Huntingdon County & others & a Discovery of the real Strength of
Opposition.39
26. The usual Arts of Party were used, besides those which have
been enumerated.
27. The Adoption of the Constitution by North Carolina was
frequently asserted & published in pretended Letters. Other Letters
were fabricated & published; but they have slipt my Memory.
28. In General it may be said that Col. Oswald was almost the
only Printer who published in Opposition in Philadelphia & that he
has been injured in Consequence. I cannot be more particular.
29. The printing presses were notoriously the great Instruments
of the American Revolution.40
30. I cannot be very particular on this head.
University of Pennsylvania
38
SAUL CORNELL
Western members of the Pennsylvania Assembly sought to prevent a vote o n calling
a state ratifying convention by absenting themselves from the State House and preventing
a quorum. Several of the seceding members of the Assembly were dragged into the State
H o u s e by a Federalist m o b in Philadelphia. B y forcing the assemblymen into the H o u s e a
quorum was achieved a n d the vote to call a state ratifying convention passed. These events
can be pieced together from DHRC, 95-106.
39
Antifederalist rioting in Cumberland and Huntingdon Counties, Bryan believed, acted
as a deterrent to further Federalist mob activity in Philadelphia. For details on these incidents,
seeDHRC, 670-718.
40
" T h e late remarkable revolution in government," ie., ratification of the federal Constitution.